Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Creativity and stakeholders' engagement in open innovation: Design for

knowledge translation in technology-intensive enterprises
⁎
Giustina Secundoa, Pasquale Del Vecchiob, , Luca Simeonec, Giovanni Schiumad
a
University of Salento, Department of Innovation Engineering, via per Monteroni, s.n., 73100 Lecce, Italy
b
University of Salento, Department of Innovation Engineering, Via Monteroni, Lecce, Italy
c
Aalborg University, Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Service Systems Design, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 København SV, Denmark
d
University of Basilicata, Department of Mathematics, Informatics and Economics, DiMIE, Potenza, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigates the role of design as a knowledge translation mechanism for social creativity in tech-
Stakeholder nology-intensive enterprises' open innovation practices of. The focus is on how design can be used to connect and
Design combine the contribution of creativity resulting from multiple stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, university
Knowledge translation students and academics in a process in which knowledge is openly shared and transferred across the boundaries
Open innovation
of companies' R&D Laboratories, a university and other institutions. Adopting the research approach of grounded
Technology intensive enterprises
Creativity
theory, the empirical investigation of an initiative in technology-intensive enterprises, developed from 2009 to
2016 by the Italian Conference of the University Colleges and the Italian Association of Young Entrepreneurs, is
presented. The aim is to provide evidence that design artefacts represent important managerial means to support
the translation of stakeholders' creativity and knowledge into new formats to nurture open innovation. This
provides relevant implications for theory building and practice.

1. Introduction developing new solutions and prototypes and advanced R&D knowl-
edge (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Huizingh,
In an ever-changing competitive environment, open innovation has 2011; Kazadi, Lievens, & Mahr, 2016; Shams & Kaufmann, 2016).
emerged as a new paradigm allowing companies to create and capture Greenwood (2007) adopts the notion of stakeholder engagement to
value (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006; Eftekhari & Bogers, 2015; Gassmann, point out the practice of involving stakeholders in a positive manner in
2006; Huizingh, 2011; van de Vrande & de Man, 2011; von Hippel, the activities of an organization. The complementary notion of stake-
2010; West, Salter, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough, 2014; Vrontis, holder co-creation addresses the collaborative activities undertaken by
Thrassou, Santoro, & Papa, 2017). The recent debate on open innova- multiple interdependent actors to contribute to an innovation process
tion has highlighted its collaborative nature, pointing out the relevance (Gebauer, Füller, & Pezzei, 2013; Mahr, Lievens, & Blazevic, 2014)
of distributed innovation sources such as external partners, suppliers, through the creation, exchange and transfer of both original ideas,
universities and other categories of stakeholders (Chebbi, Yahiaoui, creativity and knowledge assets (Bai, Lin, & Li, 2016; Karagouni, 2018;
Thrassou, & Vrontis, 2013; Ndou, Vecchio, & Schina, 2011; Salter, Ter Lerro, Schiuma, Elia, & Passiante, 2016; Natalicchio, Ardito, Savino, &
Wal, Criscuolo, & Alexy, 2015; von Hippel, 2010). This is particularly Albino, 2017; Viglia, Pera, & Bigné, 2017).
important in technology-intensive enterprises characterized by ex- The successful collaboration of different stakeholders to contribute
tensive use of knowledge and technologies for their innovation pro- to the development of novel ideas, concepts, and technologies involves
cesses and which need to interact with a number of stakeholders knowledge exchange and transfer. This requires the integration of di-
(Hashai, 2018; Lindholm Dahlstrand, 2007; Makri, Lane, & Gomez- verse perspectives, experiences, competencies and mindsets (Bianchi,
Mejia, 2006; Vrontis et al., 2017). Technology-intensive enterprises Croce, Dell'Era, Di Benedetto, & Frattini, 2016; Czinkota, Kaufmann, &
adopt the open innovation paradigm and engage external stakeholders Basile, 2014; Enkel & Gassmann, 2010; Grimaldi, Quinto, & Rippa,
in their innovation processes, activating knowledge flows co-produced 2013; Shams & Kaufmann, 2016). As a result, the open innovation and
in specific social, economic and cultural projects. This allows collaboration of external and internal stakeholders are complementary

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: giusy.secundo@unisalento.it (G. Secundo), pasquale.delvecchio@unisalento.it (P. Del Vecchio), lsi@create.aau.dk (L. Simeone),
giovanni.schiuma@unibas.it (G. Schiuma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.072
Received 27 April 2018; Received in revised form 27 February 2019; Accepted 28 February 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article as: Giustina Secundo, et al., Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.072
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

in entrepreneurial contexts for which the contribution and integration As a result, enterprises are increasingly aware that to utilize op-
of different stakeholders' competence are essential (Faems, Van Looy, & portunities and co-create value through collaborative open innovation
Debackere, 2005). This is particularly true in technology-intensive en- processes with other stakeholders, they need to find effective ways of
terprises; there, it is fundamental to adopt managerial instruments to collaborating and supporting knowledge flows (Kaufmann & Shams,
support knowledge translation between stakeholders considering their 2015). The collaboration with various types of external stakeholders -
different competencies, languages and communication characteristics such as customers, suppliers, competitors, universities, and research
(Chiesa & Piccaluga, 1998; Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2014). In this institutions - to co-create products or services allows firms to access a
venue, design can be deployed as an instrument to translate knowledge wide range of external resources, including information, insights and
(Simeone, Secundo, & Schiuma, 2017a) and to facilitate social crea- ideas (e.g., Iglesias, Ind, & Alfaro, 2013; Ind, Iglesias, & Markovic,
tivity along all the phases of open innovation, ranging from idea gen- 2017) oriented towards the generation of new products (i.e., goods
eration to the successful development of innovation projects. Despite and/or services) (e.g., Ind, Iglesias, & Schultz, 2013). The effective
the increasing research in stakeholders' engagement in open innova- transfer and acquisition of knowledge to support co-creation is essential
tion, there is still a gap in the understanding design's role and con- to make open innovation as a valid practice (e.g., Lichtenthaler &
tribution as a knowledge translation mechanism to support the devel- Lichtenthaler, 2009; Lichtenthaler, 2011; Natalicchio et al., 2017) and
opment of social creativity and integration of different stakeholders' to allow the value creation from the combination of existing knowledge
diverse experiences and specialized competences. To cover this gap, assets (Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2018). In other words, the conveyance
this paper focuses on the following question: Within the context of of knowledge from one place; for example, the knowledge transfer,
technology-intensive enterprises, how can design support knowledge trans- allows the process of open innovation to happen and to translate
lation for the social creativity of different stakeholders in the open innova- openness into innovation outcomes. A number of interpretations have
tion process? been provided for the concept and process of knowledge transfer, which
Following a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1978), the paper is acknowledged as one of the key open innovation processes. A
adopts the insights of an empirical investigation carried out from 2009 working definition of knowledge transfer provided by Chesbrough
to 2016 in a large-scale Italian initiative. This was promoted by the (2003, p. 14) considers it as the process of “identifying (accessible)
Conference of the University Colleges and the Italian Association of knowledge that already exists, acquiring it and subsequently applying this
Young Entrepreneurs and focused on the development of open in- knowledge to develop new ideas or enhance the existing ideas to make a
novation processes for technology-intensive enterprises. This initiative, process/action faster, better or safer than they would have otherwise been.
with engagement of a number of different stakeholders, for example So, basically knowledge transfer is not only about exploiting accessible re-
entrepreneurs, students, researchers and other partners, provides in- sources, i.e. knowledge, but also about how to acquire and absorb it well to
sights about how design (in the form of sketches, prototypes, diagrams, make things more efficient and effective.” The objective of a knowledge
graphics and so on) can help to ‘translate’ and ‘combine’ stakeholders' transfer process between two or more stakeholders (individuals or or-
social creativity in the form of ideas, knowledge and competencies, ganizations) is to enable the acquisition of knowledge from one actor to
towards the development of innovative projects. another (Albino, Garvelli, & Schiuma, 1998) through interactions of
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature personnel, patent disclosures, publications, knowledge assets and ser-
and introduces the relationship between open innovation, social crea- vices exchange, and so on. While such stakeholder co-creation provides
tivity, and design as a knowledge translation mechanism. Section 3 benefits for the firm, such as access to unique resources and knowledge
describes the research approach and research context. Section 4 pre- domains, it also raises new challenges because of the diverse char-
sents the study's findings. Section 5 discusses the results. Finally, the acteristics, interests and goals of the different stakeholders involved
last section concludes the paper by underlining the practical and the- (Czinkota et al., 2014; Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016; Shams, 2016).
oretical implications. Specific capabilities to anticipate and manage these challenges are
therefore of particular interest for research and practice (Kazadi et al.,
2. Literature review 2016). This is imperative for technology-intensive enterprises since
organizations' managers and engineers are increasingly encouraged to
2.1. Stakeholders' knowledge transfer in open innovation look for external knowledge sources to support their ideation perfor-
mances (Salter et al., 2015). Such contexts are particularly adept at
Open innovation occurs when knowledge flows beyond the tapping into knowledge created by universities (Audretsch et al., 2005;
boundaries of a single organization (Chesbrough, 2003) and in which a Janeiro, Proença, & da Conceição Gonçalves, 2013; Lombardi, Lardo,
high degree of cross-border organizational collaborations take place, Cuozzo, & Trequattrini, 2017; Shams, 2016). University students seem
allowing the intersection of reciprocal relationships across academia, to be among suitable actors to be involved in the virtuous dynamics of
government and industry (Audretsch, Lehmann, & Warning, 2005; knowledge transfer and integration for open innovation in incumbent
Drechsler & Natter, 2012; West & Bogers, 2014). corporations (Clark, Sanders, Davidson, Jayaraman, & Di Salvo, 2015;
Open innovation, defined as “the use of purposive inflows and Ebner, Leimeister, & Krcmar, 2009; Lazzarotti & Manzini, 2009;
outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand Secundo, Del, Schiuma, & G. and Passiante, G., 2017). The im-
the markets for external use of innovation, respectively” (Chesbrough, plementation of open innovation through a collaborative approach in-
2006, p. 1) has emerged as a key notion in the field of innovation theory volving university students and other partners (Franco & Haase, 2017;
and practice (Gassmann, Enkel, & Chesbrough, 2010). In recent years, Moon, Mariadoss, & Johnson, 2017) can be performed in different
firms have realized that to expand their knowledge base they increas- ways. Generally, companies decide to make an innovation problem
ingly need to co-create knowledge with external stakeholders to spur, public through idea competitions (Clark et al., 2015; Ebner et al.,
facilitate and develop innovation processes (Kazadi et al., 2016). 2009). Some of these competitions only pursue the generation of ideas
In the context of technology-intensive enterprises, there is an un- for innovation; others also have secondary objectives including net-
derstanding that they cannot just rely on their in-house knowledge and working with research centres or fostering students' interest in specific
resources to plan and implement the innovation processes in a way that industries or developing latent innovation projects benefiting from
could sustain their competitive advantage (Bughin, Chui, & Johnson, students' creativity. In all cases, creativity assumes a strategic role as a
2008). Different performance in terms of innovation value can be ob- key source of innovation (Westlund, Andersson, & Karlsson, 2014) and
served based on the characteristics of knowledge resources employed innovation can be viewed as a successful implementation of creativity
by companies of different age and sizes (Messeni Petruzzelli, Ardito, & (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996) leading to shared
Savino, 2018). value (Ind et al., 2013; Czinkota et al., 2003; Shams, 2016).

2
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2.2. Stakeholders' creativity in open innovation such as Apple or Samsung (Menguc et al., 2014).
Design tools, methods, techniques and activities such as research,
The notion of creativity as a driving force behind innovation and user participation and (user) testing, rapid and frequent prototyping,
entrepreneurship dates back to the term “creative destruction,” which development and visualization/materialization techniques can support
was used to describe economic growth through innovation creative processes as they help the stakeholders involved in the design
(Schumpeter, 1942). By stimulating the creativity of frontline man- process in alternating divergent and convergent thinking systematically
agers, scientists, engineers and designers, organizations become more (Le Masson, Hatchuel, & Weil, 2011). In a design process, there are
flexible, agile, intuitive, imaginative, and resilient and can face the stages in which multiple ideas and possible directions are explored. In
increasing complexity and turbulence of the competitive environment. these stages, this multiplicity or divergent thinking can help look at
Focusing on open innovation processes, the current view of crea- ideas or problems from different angles. However, to progress into the
tivity emphasizes the role of interactions between stakeholders and the development and implementation, stages of focus are also needed in
combination of knowledge, ideas and information (Andersson, 1985). which convergent thinking limits possibilities and directions to follow.
Based on this conceptualization, Andersson (1985) points out that the The interplay of various stakeholders in the design process is a key
creative process is dynamic and interactive. This characterization al- topic, which was thoroughly explored by participatory design
lows highlighting two dimensions grounding creativity, the mental and (Björgvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2012; Simonsen & Robertson, 2013),
social dimensions. The mental dimension is related to the individual's service design (Eneberg & Svengren Holm, 2015; Meroni & Sangiorgi,
capacity to combine and integrate knowledge from different contexts to 2011; Wetter-Edman, 2014) and by authors interested in examining the
create new knowledge or, generally, something new. In this perspec- broader and systemic implications of design activities (Björgvinsson
tive, creativity allows the generation or production of ideas that are et al., 2012; Krippendorff, 2006). Design artefacts such as sketches,
both novel and useful (Amabile, 1988). On the other hand, the social various visualizations (e.g., 3D renders, data visualizations, motion
dimension of creativity reflects the social interactions among all the graphics animations and videos) and prototypes at various degrees of
actors involved in the open innovation process. This allows individuals refinement can be used to enhance communication among various
to be exposed to new information and knowledge that can be combined stakeholders, for example in R&D projects (Ito, 2016; Leonard &
with the existing information and knowledge of individuals or groups of Rayport, 1997; Rust, 2004, 2007) or throughout innovation processes
individuals (Westlund et al., 2014). The final result is the process of (Bogers & Horst, 2013). These authors point out how stakeholders in
generating and applying such creative ideas in specific contexts collaborative processes might have different needs and interests and
(Westlund et al., 2014), creating meaningful and sustainable value for speak different languages. Design artefacts can ease the communication
stakeholders (Amabile, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996; Isaksen & Ekvall, among these different stakeholders.
2010). As argued by Clark et al. (2015), the effectiveness of the open Previous studies (Simeone, 2016; Simeone, Secundo, & Schiuma,
innovation requires the understanding of the knowledge transfer 2017b) explored whether the construct of translation could be used to
practices at the basis of mental and social creativity in all the phases to represent the role that design artefacts have in such situations. Design
develop innovative projects. The knowledge transfer process is not, per artefacts can translate ideas, concepts, and knowledge coming from one
se, a mere transfer of knowledge (Liyanage, Elhag, Ballal, & Li, 2009). stakeholder into a visual or tangible format (e.g., visual diagrams or
As Seaton (2002) explains, it requires knowledge about how to transfer prototypes) that can be more easily understood and appreciated by
knowledge. When knowledge is transferred across very diverse contexts other stakeholders who speak a different language and have their own
(e.g., from academia to industry), knowledge needs to be translated to needs and interests. The concept of translation is not new in design
still be interesting and relevant (Graham et al., 2006). Translating research. Some authors show how participation in design is tied to
knowledge involves processing new knowledge, interpreting it ac- “problems of interpretation and translation of varying user and expert
cording to the needs and interests of the different actors involved, and perspectives” (Reich, Konda, Monarch, Levy, & Subrahmanian, 1996, p.
transforming it into forms that are more suitable for the specific orga- 177) and argue in favor of “increasing access to technical knowledge
nizational context of the application (Albino et al., 1998). Therefore, and its translation for equal participation in a dialectical process”
translation can be seen as a highly applicable analogy for exploring the (Reich et al., 1996, p. 174). Translation is seen as a complex process
nature of knowledge transfer (Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004). The riddled with negotiations (Cooper, Bruce, Wootton, Hands, & Daly,
next section introduces design as a key mechanism as the basis of 2003; Tomes, Oates, & Armstrong, 1998) and in which the designers act
knowledge translation practices for open innovation among different as “intermediary between disparate ideas, viewpoints and even goals.
stakeholders. Being able to translate in this manner is an essential precondition for
being able to integrate many things” (Boyer, Cook, & Steinberg, 2011,
2.3. Design as a knowledge translational mechanism p.327).

Design is a multifaceted activity, which spans a wide variety of di- 2.4. Research gap
mensions, from creating visual representations to conceiving, proto-
typing and deploying a product or a service (Awwad & Akroush, 2016), Little attention was paid to analysis of the interplay between design
to facilitating techniques such as hackathons, design jams and other (as a translation mechanism) and creativity in open innovation pro-
similar participatory sessions that aim at directly engaging a variety of cesses, in which generally different stakeholders interact in the process
stakeholders in the design process. D'Ippolito (2014) provides a char- of value creation. Most of the attention has to been focused on the
acterization that looks at the concept of design from different angles, understanding of how managers and entrepreneurs use collectively-
not only as a creative process but also as an instrument to support or- generated creativity to develop new ideas for products and process
ganizations' strategic positioning and competitiveness. In a similar vein, development (Baum & Bird, 2010). There is limited work on how en-
a good number of studies in design management have analyzed how trepreneurs could stimulate the relationships between stakeholder en-
design can support entrepreneurship and managerial processes (Best, gagement and innovative entrepreneurial opportunity identification
2006; Borja de Mozota, 2003; Hargadon, 2005; Hirsch, 2012; Walton, (Burns, Barney, Angus, & Herrick, 2014). This is a key issue when, for
2004), and assure customers' and suppliers' involvement for the en- example, brilliant university students are involved in technology-in-
hancement of incremental and radical innovation (Menguc, Auh, & tensive enterprises that open their innovation boundaries with mutual
Yannopoulos, 2014). Design is widely acknowledged as a fundamental benefits for innovators, entrepreneurs and themselves (Clark et al.,
tool for product innovation, and it has also been identified as one of the 2015; Ebner et al., 2009; Moon et al., 2017; Secundo et al., 2017). Some
key factors at the basis of the success of technology-driven corporations studies have explored the contribution of design to open innovation, for

3
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

example researching how organizations can work together with end- the study goals (Kumar, Stern, & Anderson, 1993). The interviews were
users in various open design and manufacturing processes (von Hippel, carried based on a semi-structured schema and adopting a flexible ap-
2010) or praising the potential of design-based approach to support proach. They used a protocol structured into four main sections related
open innovation fueled by scientific research (Ito, 2016; Maeda & Ito, to the: 1) identikit of those interviewed, 2) motivations behind the
2015). However, in these studies, on one hand, the construct of trans- participation in Mimprendo, 3) knowledge provided to the open in-
lation is not addressed and design's potential role as a managerial in- novation phases and creativity, and 4) design artefacts made during the
strument to support knowledge translation within the open innovation innovation development. Key informants were identified in the national
processes is overlooked. On the other hand, the potential role of design referents of the Mimprendo initiative. Each category included different
to facilitate social creativity is not thoroughly discussed. informants, to avoid weaknesses of evidence and to have a plural basis
of evidence and guarantee the highest degree of reliability (Gilmore &
3. Research methodology Coviello, 1999). All the interviews were anticipated by preliminary
contacts and aimed to determine whether the informant could confirm
This paper adopts the grounded theory as an exploratory and qua- insights and information that the researchers discovered.
litative research approach (Glaser, 1978, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; The third stage was characterized by the collection of primary data
Suddaby, 2006). It is a recognized as a methodology for theory-building with the authors' direct engagement in developing open innovation
which, by adopting a practical method, allows research development by projects promoted by technology-intensive enterprises with the parti-
analyzing and interpreting the “production of meanings and concepts cipation of other stakeholders. Next, the final projects' main results
used by social actors in real settings” (Gephart, 2004, p. 457). Glaser were scrutinized to extract insights and derive implications regarding
and Strauss (1967) argued that the development of a new conceptual the knowledge translation processes that took place through the
contribution calls for careful identification of contrasts and relation- adoption of design.
ships between what is actually going on and their interpretations by Data analysis followed an inductive and iterative process (Miles &
observers (Suddaby, 2006). The adoption of this research approach is Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To ensure the full compre-
motivated by the aim of empirically investigating how creativity and hension of the observed phenomenon, as required in the case study, the
design are adopted by technology-intensive enterprises to share and analysis attempted to assure in all the phases the convergence of ob-
integrate knowledge of different stakeholders along the phases of open servations with the entire research team's contribution. Before pro-
innovation. Consistently, the literature analysis was carried out itera- ceeding with the analysis, the collected data were prepared. In the
tively and in parallel with the empirical data collection and inter- study's first stage, the data gathered as secondary sources were pro-
pretation. cessed through categorization, reduction and contextualization. In the
second stage, a preliminary definition of a descriptive code (included in
3.1. Research context the interview structure) resulting from the study's theoretical back-
ground was addressed. Data reduction and organization of categories
The empirical research focus was the Mimprendo initiative (www. aimed to prepare the findings analysis stage. Discussion of the data
mimprendo.it). This is an innovative Italian initiative aimed at pro- collected was performed to achieve the full interpretation, to seek the
moting open innovation in technology-intensive enterprises involving a relationship occurring between the different categories of actors in-
large community of stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, graduate volved in Mimprendo, and to evaluate the benefit of design to direct
and under-graduate university students, university faculty, and man- creativity expressed within the project into open innovation outputs.
agers. Mimprendo is promoted by the Italian Association of Young Finally, as described by Eisenhardt (1989), a further series of iterations
Entrepreneurs of Confindustria and the Conference of the University between data and literature was conducted to develop the framework
Colleges, a non-profit institution operating in the field of Italian edu- and better identify the theoretical foundations and implications of the
cation in collaboration with Italian universities. The Mimprendo in- research.
itiative was conceived and developed as a national innovation lab
aimed to match the innovation demands – particularly of technology- 4. Findings
intensive enterprises - with the university students' creativity through
the identification, initiation, and development of innovative projects The stakeholders involved in the Mimprendo initiative - university
competing for their innovativeness and feasibility. From 2009 to 2016, students, entrepreneurs, and researchers- brought to the table their
more than 240 projects were proposed by technology-intensive en- different capabilities. One of the main goals of Mimprendo was to build
terprises at the call for proposal launched by sponsors, and more than on the diversity of the various stakeholders, from the deeper knowledge
120 projects were developed with the involvement of more than 1000 of companies and universities about business and technological do-
students from 28 Italian universities. mains, to the university students' fresh and creative way of looking at
problems. The stakeholders' interaction included the deployment of soft
3.2. Data collection and analysis skills such as collaboration and communication, pro-activeness, pro-
blem-solving and goal attainment. They interacted for developing en-
Data collection was carried out using multiple data sources and trepreneurial projects in technology-intensive enterprises, by con-
ensuring triangulation (Eisenhardt, 1989) by combining investigative tributing to the following main phases: 1) Idea Generation and
techniques to reduce the bias of a single observation with the aim to Inspiration, in which an innovative project idea was proposed as the
enhance data credibility (Patton, 1990). Data collection was structured interaction of entrepreneurs and the project team; 2) Contamination and
into three main stages. Research during which the innovative projects were developed in
In the first stage, an analysis of secondary sources was performed to companies' laboratories; 3) Innovation Development characterized by the
build a first understanding of the investigated case and to assess its finalization of a project evaluated as successful.
meaningfulness. Useful analysis sources in this stage were archival re-
cords, documentary information, project reports, institutional commu- 4.1. Design and stakeholders' engagement in Mimprendo
nication tools, such as the website, press-cutting, Facebook fan-page
and other social network accounts. 4.1.1. Different components of all the stakeholders' creativity were involved
In the second stage, data collection was performed through inter- in the Mimprendo initiative
views with selected key informants. A preliminary interview protocol Moving from the relevance of knowledge transfer in all the stages of
was defined and a database of key informants was created considering the open innovation processes for the technology-intensive enterprises

4
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Mimprendo stakeholders' creativity components.
Main stakeholders Reasons for stakeholders' participation in open Role in Mimprendo Knowledge contributions to mental and social
innovation practice creativity

Students - Future career development Primary Creative ideas

- Entrepreneurial skills development Curricular knowledge
- Monetary rewards Personal background knowledge
Creative mindset
Enterprises - Innovative projects' development Primary Industry knowledge
- Access to creative ideas Customers knowledge
- Gaining scientific know-how Organizational routines
- Pre-selection of future high-skilled human capital
Market and business needs
Association of Young Entrepreneurs of - Diffusion of entrepreneurial culture Sponsor Relational and institutional knowledge
Confindustria - Reinforcement of belonging values among associated Project management techniques
companies
Conference of the University Colleges - Diffusion of innovation and entrepreneurial values; Sponsor Relational and institutional knowledge
- Brand promotion
MIUR (Italian Ministry of and Research) - - Certificating of soft skills development Supportive Categorization and assessment of soft skills
Cineca development
Universities and Research Centres - Innovation in curricula creation Supportive R&D
- Reinforcement of linkages and collaborations with Scientific knowledge
territorial external actors Scientific and industrial partnerships
- Third mission achievement
External consultants and experts - Providing advanced professional and technical services Supportive Specific technical knowledge and
- Market opportunities development competencies

participating in the Mimprendo initiative, the mental and social di- interdisciplinary educational background, it was possible to reinforce
mensions of creativity reinforced each other, as did the enhancement of the experimentation to carry out plans, seek new ideas and opportu-
the university students' social, cognitive, emotional and creative abil- nities, get involved and take actions. Experimentation was continuously
ities and development of innovative ideas and solutions at the basis of fueled by teams focused on solving complex challenges and identifying
the innovative projects. Creativity was expressed in terms of a combi- possible scenarios and solutions for the enterprises' innovation needs.
nation of knowledge and competencies of entrepreneurs, project This was supported by continuous brainstorming among students with
sponsors, university students and researchers. Each category of stake- different backgrounds (science, business, humanities, biology, etc.) and
holders contributed to the open innovation phases in the Mimprendo's by the involvement of students within the ecosystem where the com-
projects with different types of knowledge combined to generate new pany was located. Finally, universities and research centres provided
ideas. The knowledge co-creation process among stakeholders (stu- knowledge transfer practices contributing to the dissemination of their
dents, entrepreneurs, institutions, external consultants) were supported staff and researchers' scientific and technical knowledge through pro-
by different motivations and characterized by different roles (see cesses of student mentoring and coaching and thanks to a continuous
Table 1). interplay with external consultants' relational capital and contacts. In
Social creativity was the result of the combination of the different all these processes, knowledge was combined and integrated from ex-
stakeholders' knowledge contributing to the technology-intensive en- ternal sources to generate creative ideas and solutions based on in-
terprises' innovation projects. University students enrolled in master's novation.
degree courses participate in the project development with all the The Association of Young Entrepreneurs of Confindustria with the
knowledge developed along their education path. At the outset, stu- Conference of the University Colleges, as main project sponsors, pro-
dents used their personal education background to successfully identify vided the relational knowledge and project management techniques for
the project in which they could create and integrate their knowledge managing the open innovation project development in all the tech-
and motivation. The capacity to approach problems creatively and to nology-intensive enterprises. Moreover, another institution which
address ideas to solve the needs of the technology-intensive enterprises contributed to the Mimprendo initiative was the MIUR Cineca (Italian
with which they work were fundamental in this first phase. Ministry of University and Research), which provided the classification
Additionally, the students' creativity was enriched by the contribution of the soft skills, making it possible to recognize the final certification of
of scientific knowledge gained by university researchers and external all the students participating in the project.
experts and by the entrepreneurs' expertise and vision. The virtuous
process of sharing the entrepreneurs' experience, the students' positive 4.1.2. How did the design act as a knowledge translation mechanism for
attitude and knowledge and their interdisciplinary background dis- creativity among all the Mimprendo stakeholders?
closed new and unexplored path of innovation and experimentation. Throughout all the phases of Mimprendo, different forms of crea-
This was performed mainly through meetings, workshops and creative tivity and knowledge dimensions were translated into alternative for-
brainstorming to refine the ideas behind the innovation projects. mats to make them accessible to different stakeholders. The design was
The entrepreneurs were also primary contributors to the creative systematically used to produce artefacts such as visual diagrams,
development activated in Mimprendo, mainly because of their ex- websites, videos, prototypes, 3D renderings and so on. These design
pertise, market knowledge and business knowledge. The organizational artefacts proved to favor processes of knowledge translation in which
routines and knowledge of business processes allowed the identification ideas, concepts, and technical documents were translated into formats –
of innovation needs and supported the formulation of new ideas. This such as a visual diagram – that could be more easily understood by
process was supported by meetings with external experts, brain- other participants. These processes occurred, for example, when some
storming sessions with company R&D managers, the participation in specific actors (e.g., cutting-edge researchers in energy technologies)
innovative workshops and direct involvement of students within the R& decided to produce a visual sketch that would translate their academic
D department of companies. By using and combining the previous en- and technological ideas into a format that could be more easily ap-
trepreneurs' experience and knowledge with the students' preciated by non-academic audiences. In some other cases, the

5
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

translation processes emerged from the interplay of various actors. One format for students and enterprises (Fig. 1-B). On the one hand, these
example was a situation in which a prototype for an innovative solar design artefacts were clear, precise and quite straightforward; their
panel was jointly created during a participatory brainstorming session main goal was to align a variety of different actors (convergent
when entrepreneurs, engineers, university students worked at the same thinking), with a specific focus on the nature and intensity of the
table to produce a preliminary paper prototype of this new solar panel. contribution offered by all the stakeholders. On the other, these
Design artefacts were used to support a creative process fostering artefacts were inspirational and open. They invited the students and
divergent and convergent thinking systematically. Divergent thinking the other stakeholders to be bold in their ideation phases, to explore
pushed the various stakeholders to build on their diversity and to unexplored routes and unleash their imagination (divergent thinking).
imagine a broad spectrum of ideas and possibilities based on their In this phase, knowledge translation supported by the design artefacts
specific and different needs and wants. Convergent thinking, con- was meant to fuel both convergent and divergent thinking. There was
versely, brought the stakeholders together, aligning their effort towards some preliminary interaction among the stakeholders. The ideation
a more limited set of directions to follow. processes did not fully foster the potential of social creativity.
The following sections outline a brief description of the role of de-
sign as a translation for creativity in the open innovation phases of
technology-intensive enterprises participating in the Mimprendo in- 4.1.2.2. Phase 2: design as translation in the contamination and research
itiative. phase. In this second phase, the teams were invited to produce and
present their preliminary ideas through visual formats such as the
business model canvas. The graphical representation of the business
4.1.2.1. Phase 1: design as translation in the idea generation and model canvas (Fig. 1-C) demonstrated how some of the teams created
inspiration phase. In the first phase of the open innovation process, diagrams that in graphics and illustrations and that represented original
various design artefacts focused on creating a common understanding ideas on the problems proposed by Mimprendo. In this phase, the
among the various participants. As main organizers, the Association of various stakeholders of each team worked together for the first time,
Young Entrepreneurs of Confindustria with the Conference of the and these visual diagrams were ways to overcome potential differences
University Colleges maintained an overall vision of the process and in languages, needs and interests among the team members, to translate
established the procedures for involving technology-intensive different viewpoints into shared knowledge and, ultimately, to
enterprises and students. In this phase, the enterprises' project ideas converge into solutions that the team can jointly develop.
and their related knowledge were translated into various visual At the same time, the Mimprendo's promoters created and shared a
formats, such as flyers (1-A) and a website that made broad use of series of templates (such as Fig. 1-D) to define some guidelines and
diagrams, including a graphical schema presenting the rules in a simple boundaries for the stakeholders' creative processes to converge. These

C) Business Model Canvas

A) Mimprendo Flyer D) Template for Presentation

B) Mimprendo Contest Rules E) Technical Diagrams & Renderings

Fig. 1. Design tools for knowledge translation.

6
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

templates guided the whole open innovation process to control and innovation practices. This offers a contribution to the understanding of
standardize the creative cross-fertilisation and divergent exploration the knowledge transfer mechanisms regarding open innovation sources
taking place within the various teams. In spite of these boundaries, (Bianchi et al., 2016; Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2015; West & Bogers, 2014) and
there was still the possibility for the team members to express their of the social creativity grounding innovation and value generation at
original ideas by visually enriching the templates through infographics, organizational level (George, 2007; Westlund et al., 2014) through the
diagrams and potentially additional design materials such as motion involvement of a number of different stakeholders. In the 2015 Mim-
graphics videos or simple prototypes. The market feasibility, commer- prendo's edition, 29 teams were created to develop the innovation
cial feasibility and technological features of the final product or service projects of 29 technology-intensive enterprises during Phase 1 (idea
to be developed and the innovativeness of the project were then generation and inspiration). A total of 138 students coming from 28
translated by the teams into a report to be uploaded into the web different Italian universities took part in the process. The analyses of the
platform (e.g., see Fig. 1-D,C). In this second phase, design artefacts open innovation phases shed light on the relevance of translating
activated knowledge translation processes that stimulate divergent knowledge across very diverse contexts (e.g., from academia to industry
thinking but still set some boundaries that help different stakeholders to to institutions). This has enhanced the understanding of the role of
converge. This interplay between divergent and convergent thinking design as a knowledge translation mechanism among different stake-
informed social creativity processes that saw different stakeholders holders in open innovation (Kazadi et al., 2016; Menguc et al., 2014;
interact from their own perspective and their own individual way of Simeone et al., 2017a; Simeone et al., 2017b).
fostering and expressing creativity. The final innovative ideas sub- Knowledge translation processes are particularly important when
mitted by the team members emerged as a result of this design-based translating innovation needs from technology-intensive enterprises into
knowledge cross-fertilisation within the team members and of a social practices for university students, researchers and professors, and other
creativity process that built on the specificities of the stakeholders. institutional stakeholders (e.g., the scientific committee evaluation the
final projects' results or some potential funders). For the Mimprendo
4.1.2.3. Phase 3: design as translation in the innovation development initiative, the knowledge translation has proven to be a key process for
phase. Phase 3 was mainly devoted to developing the prototype of nurturing creativity as an instrument for strategic positioning and
the new solutions in which students' technical knowledge, experts' R&D competitiveness of enterprises by supporting the practice of open in-
knowledge and the entrepreneurs' expertise were combined and novation.
translated into a new creative format to support communication The interplay of all the stakeholders engaged in the open innovation
outside the Mimprendo community. In this phase, typical design phases of technology-intensive enterprises participating in Mimprendo
artefacts were digital or physical prototypes, from early-stage mock- project was characterized by differences in terms of interests, needs and
ups to quite refined and advanced tangible prototypes. An interesting languages. Different stakeholders are generally looking at the project's
case is offered by the Fertile-irrigator, a project for a solar-powered participation from their own perspectives and regarding their own
irrigator, selected as one of the best projects in 2015. In it, the specialized knowledge. As a result, enterprises are much more expert in
functional and technological requirements were translated into both the processes of commercial exploitation, but may know very little
some virtual renders and a physical, 3D-printed prototype to about the scientific advancements in the technological innovation field.
demonstrate the knowledge collaboratively generated (Fig. 1-E). The Academic partners are quite expert in advancement in technologies
design in the form of prototype and drawing facilitated communication required by the innovation projects, but not so much aware of business
and helped to mediate among actors speaking different languages strategy. University students are more conscious of scientific and
(project sponsors, entrepreneurs, students and researchers). These business knowledge, but do not know how to translate this into in-
forms of design represented an effective way to translate the novation outputs. In a project that relies upon open innovation dy-
entrepreneurs' tacit knowledge into a technical format to also be used namics and, consequently, upon a quite high number of potential ex-
to promote the projects to potential investors. The design artefacts were ternal stakeholders, design as a translation mechanism can support the
also used strategically for this purpose. Other design artefacts were overcoming of all these obstacles (Chesbrough, 2003) and ignite and
more technical in nature and illustrated product functioning through sustain mental and social creativity. In all the open innovation phases,
diagrams carefully describing the interplay of the various elements the design has acted as a translation mechanism for the different forms
(Fig. 1-E). The same project was simultaneously articulated across of knowledge and competencies that were fundamental for combining
various visual representations, which could speak to different actors. ideas, knowledge and competencies of entrepreneurs, students and in-
Specialists, engineers, and researchers could look at the Fertirrigator's stitutions (see Fig. 2). This shows that stakeholders are becoming in-
various technical components and appreciate the detail of its creasingly empowered, interconnected and willing to share their
functioning. Non-specialists, such as external investors, could look at knowledge and ideas with firms (Gebauer et al., 2013), even if such
more emotional pictures that could more easily ignite their interest. active participation has not always been the focus of stakeholder theory
Knowledge translation processes sustained by design artefacts were, (Kazadi et al., 2016).
in this phase, mostly aimed at supporting convergence, disciplining the Managing open innovation means orchestrating complex social
social dimension of the creativity and aligning the various stakeholders' processes of interactions in which various stakeholders create and
creative efforts towards a joint direction. combine knowledge to develop creativity for innovation (Westlund
et al., 2014) and face the complex and turbulent dynamics of the
5. Discussions competitive environment. Findings confirm that when involving diverse
external stakeholders in co-creation, entrepreneurs and managers
The Mimprendo case study provides interesting insights into the should develop mechanisms to share knowledge with them effectively
relevance of design-backed translation in all the phases of the open (e.g., online platforms and tools; offline workshops and focus groups),
innovation process in technology-intensive enterprises for engaging and foster knowledge-sharing among internal stakeholders (i.e., em-
different stakeholders in a co-creation process. Despite the growing ployees). Fostering internal knowledge-sharing is important in co-
importance of stakeholder integration in practice, the academic dis- creation initiatives because it helps resources (i.e., information, ideas,
cussion of stakeholder integration needs to be enriched by research and insights) absorbed from external stakeholders to spread across the
contributions (Driessen, Kok, & Hillebrand, 2013). The Mimprendo whole organization, thereby becoming available to all departments and
initiative provides evidence about the collaboration of innovative en- business units (Markovic & Bagherzadeh, 2018). Specifically, the use of
trepreneurs and university students, supported by a larger network of design in Mimprendo assumed multiple forms (i.e. graphical, textual,
stakeholders, for the development of entrepreneurial ideas and open prototypal development) useful to address the transformation of social

7
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Phase 1. Phase 2. Phase 3.

Idea Generaon & Inspiraon Contaminaon & Research Innovaon development

Ministry of
University and Creavity Knowledge External Creavity-based
University
Research - CINECA Consultants Open Innovaon
Students

Researchers
& Professors

Design based translaon tools

Fig. 2. Open innovation: the interplay between creativity and design.

creativity emerging from multiple stakeholders (internal and external) entrepreneurs with business and market knowledge), having different
into valuable knowledge for achievement of the open innovation goals interests (students aim to achieve a professional career and en-
in technology-intensive projects. This evidence is coherent with the trepreneurs would like to develop innovative projects opening up their
trend of companies requiring knowledge from the input of multiple boundaries) into new formats that can be more easily understood and
(external) parties (Hsiao, Tsai, & Lee, 2012). Furthermore, this evidence appreciated by all the other actors (including the scientific committee
contributes to the advancement of the theoretical pillars in which sta- evaluating the projects). Ultimately, in the Mimprendo case, this in-
keholder integration may benefit the enterprises in a more active way terplay between the social creativity interpreted as the “combination”
when empowered stakeholders are potential sources of unique knowl- of knowledge and competencies of different actors and design as
edge during the innovation process (Kazadi et al., 2016). knowledge “translation” in a community composed by actors (mainly
In the case of Mimprendo, different design artefacts were used innovative entrepreneurs and university students) with different lan-
throughout the process. At an initial phase (idea generation and in- guages, interests and needs, allowed supporting the open innovation
spiration), the clarity of design artefacts such as flyers and diagrams practices in technology-intensive enterprises.
carefully explaining the rules for participation was critical to kick-start The case analysis showed how the design of artefacts could be
the overall open innovation process and to align and inspire the various strategically used to stimulate and manage the interplay of different
teams. In the second phase (research and cross-fertilisation), design stakeholders across phases of divergent and convergent thinking.
artefacts contributed to a process that favoured divergent thinking and Throughout the open innovation process, these two modes of thinking
creative contamination of knowledge among different team members can be continuously fostered, exploring multiple directions through
and, at the same time, marked some boundaries to limit open ex- divergent thinking and re-focusing on some specific directions to follow
plorations, to support some standards in the elaboration and pre- through convergent thinking. In the case of Mimprendo, the final result
sentation of ideas and to help team members to converge. In the third was the generation of creative and ground-breaking innovative solu-
phase (innovation development), design artefacts were strategically tions based on the collaboration and connection of stakeholders with
used by the various teams to translate their ideas into multiple formats different experiences and knowledge.
that could present the same project to different audiences by creating
various and specific visual or tangible prototypes. The same solar-
powered irrigator could be presented through design artefacts high- 6. Conclusions and implications
lighting the product's different and specific qualities in light of the
specific needs and interests of different actors. The greatest number of Despite its importance, stakeholder engagement co-creation during
design artefacts was produced in this phase. In this third phase of in- the innovation process requires more attention (Hult, Mena, Ferrell, &
novation development, design (in the form of sketches, prototypes, Ferrell, 2011). This view can be enriched, specifically, by focusing on
diagrams, graphics etc.) helps to ‘translate’ and ‘combine’ ideas, the key role of design as a managerial mechanism for the translation of
knowledge and competencies (creativity) from different actors speaking different stakeholders' knowledge during open innovation processes of
different languages (students with different education background and technology-intensive enterprises. This paper presents the empirical
evidence resulting from the Mimprendo initiative. This was an

8
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

innovative Italian program aimed to promote the dissemination of en- fields: Open innovation, Knowledge Translation and Design research,
trepreneurial culture among university students and to develop in- thus integrating mature, but so far isolated research streams.
novation outcomes within enterprises. Design in Mimprendo operated Specifically, elements of value concern: 1) the centrality of mental and
as a way to strategically support convergent and divergent thinking, social creativity in strategies and practices of open innovation as
thus recognizing and balancing the different objectives of the stake- stemming from the interplay of diverse stakeholders; 2) the meaning of
holders involved, ensuring that their needs and expectations should be creativity as a social feature emerging from the interaction among
addressed (Fogelberg & Sanden, 2008) and leveraging on differences multiple stakeholders with interdisciplinary backgrounds, compe-
existing in terms of interests, needs, languages, knowledge and com- tencies, knowledge and expectations.
petencies that fuel mental and social creativity.
6.2. Limitations and future research
6.1. Implications for theory and practice
Despite the above elements of originality, study limitations are re-
The paper suggests implications for theory and practice. Regarding lated to the need to investigate the Mimprendo initiative taking a
theory, an interesting contribution emerges at the intersection of design longitudinal approach to identify elements of variance and to enrich the
research and open innovation: the key role of design as translation basis of evidence on the role of design through an in-depth cross-case
process for collective development of creativity among multiple stake- study analysis related to technology-intensive enterprises participating
holders including innovative entrepreneurs, university students, re- in the different editions, also through the comparison with low-tech
searchers and other institutional actors. As emerging from the empirical enterprises. Furthermore, it could be useful to empirically verify the
investigation of the Mimprendo initiative, the basic assumption for role of design as a knowledge translation mechanism in other contexts
open innovation is that every stakeholder is creative and can play an where open innovation happens through the involvement of larger
active role in transferring knowledge. However, cultural and profes- communities of stakeholders.
sional diversity (educational background, knowledge and compe-
tencies, interests, needs and language) can represent obstacles in co- References
creating and transferring knowledge that is fundamental to activate and
sustain creativity. This is coherent with the research and practice de- Albino, V., Garvelli, C., & Schiuma, G. (1998). Document knowledge transfer and inter-
monstrating a shift of technology-intensive enterprises towards colla- firm relationships in industrial districts: The role of the leader firm. Technovation,
19(1), 53–63.
borating simultaneously with multiple stakeholders during the open Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
innovation processes (Kazadi et al., 2016). In this frame, design Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–168.
emerges as a translation mechanism of knowledge through different Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
formats: Andersson, Å. E. (1985). Creativity and regional development. Paper in regional science,
56(1), 5–20.
• visual articulations, in the case of sketches, diagrams, visual inter- Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firms
location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.
faces. These formats are mostly used during the first phase of open Awwad, A., & Akroush, D. M. N. (2016). New product development performance success
innovation when the entrepreneurs' ideas and knowledge are com- measures: An exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1), 2–29.
bined with the first insights deriving from university students. Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Li, P. P. (2016). How to enable employee creativity in a team context: A

• demonstrator and tangible articulations, this is the case of prototypes cross-level mediating process of transformational leadership. Journal of Business
Research, 69(9), 3240–3250.
or rendering files. This format is widely used during the research Baum, J. R., & Bird, B. (2010). The successful intelligence of high-growth entrepreneurs:
and development phase of open innovation when an entrepreneur Links to new venture growth. Organization Science, 21(2), 397–412.
must demonstrate the technical feasibility or the commercial feasi- Best, K. (2006). Design management: Managing design strategy, process and implementation.
Lausanne: AVA Publishing.
bility of future innovations. These demonstrators may help capture Bianchi, M., Croce, A., Dell'Era, C., Di Benedetto, C. A., & Frattini, F. (2016). Organizing
the existing potential of science when conceived as a real product for inbound open innovation: How external consultants and a dedicated R&D unit
(Moultrie, 2015). influence product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

•
33(4), 492–510.
other forms of articulations based on one or multiple dimensions (visual, Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking:
web graphics music, video, photography, performance, textual de- Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.
scriptions or stories, communication flyers). Graphics and illus- Bogers, M., & Horst, W. (2013). Collaborative prototyping: Cross-fertilization of knowl-
edge in prototype-driven problem solving. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
trative translations are mostly used in the phase of open innovation 31(7), 1–21.
when the results need to be communicated outside the scientific Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design management: Using design to build brand value and
community to promote the engagement of potential partners for the corporate innovation. New York: Allworth Press.
Boyer, B., Cook, J. W., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Recipes for systemic change. Helsinki
commercialization of products or to identify new partners in the
(Finland): Sitra/Helsinki Design Lab.
process of licensing out. Bughin, J. R., Chui, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). The next step in open innovation. June:
McKinsey Quarterly1–8.
Burns, B., Barney, B., Angus, R. and Herrick, H. N. (2014), “Opportunity identification
For managerial practice, three main implications can be acknowl-
and stakeholder enrolment under conditions of risk and uncertainty”, available
edged. First, innovation management in technology-intensive en- http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2014/1/17416.abstract (accessed 02 June,
terprises, which is aimed at assuring the continuous updating of tech- 2018).
nologies and competencies, is called to open their boundaries of Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2013). The exploration activity's
added value into the innovation process. Global Business and Economics Review,
organizational knowledge to embrace forms of collaborations with 15(2–3), 265–278.
multiple stakeholders including students, researchers and professors, Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting
competitors, institutions. Second, it is essential to point out the in- from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard: Boston, MA.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in a new innovation landscape.
novative way to develop corporate knowledge by adopting an enlarged Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
view of the open innovation processes facilitated by design as a trans- Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging
lation mechanism. Finally, practical implications concern the educa- paradigm for understanding innovation, new frontiers in open innovation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
tional offer of universities that are increasingly called to encourage Chiesa, V. & Piccaluga, A. (1998). Transforming rather than transferring scientific and
forms of collaboration and adoption of a hybrid model of learning technological knowledge – The contribution of academic ‘spin out’ companies: The
pattern design and development according to the final aim to generate Italian way, in: Oakey, R.P. and During, W.E. (eds). New Technology-Based Firms in
the 1990s, Vol. 5, Paul Chapman Publishing, London, UK.
innovation and entrepreneurship in all students. Clark, R., Sanders, M., Davidson, B., Jayaraman, S. & Di Salvo, C. (2015). The
The paper's originality lies at the intersection among three different

9
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

convergence innovation competition: Helping students create innovative products Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in
and experiences via technical and business mentorship. In Human-Computer creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88.
Interaction: Users and Contexts, pp. 144–153, Switzerland: Springer International Ito, J. (2016). Design and science. Journal of Design Science [Online]. Available at:
Publishing. http://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/designandscience.
Cooper, R., Bruce, M., Wootton, A., Hands, D., & Daly, L. (2003). Managing design in the Janeiro, P., Proença, I., & da Conceição Gonçalves, V. (2013). Open innovation: Factors
extended enterprise. Building Research and Information, Vol. 1(5), 367–378. explaining universities as service firm innovation sources. Journal of Business
Czinkota, M., Kaufmann, H. R., & Basile, G. (2014). The relationship between legitimacy, Research, 66(10), 2017–2023.
reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains. Karagouni, G. (2018). Production technologies and low-technology knowledge-intensive
Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 91–101. venturing. EuroMed Journal of Business, 13(1), 75–85.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), Kaufmann, H. R. and Shams, S. M. R. (2015 Entrepreneurial challenges in the 21st cen-
699–709. tury: Creating stakeholder value co-creation. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
D'Ippolito, B. (2014). The importance of design for firms' competitiveness: A review of the Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation
literature. Technovation, 34(11), 716–730. process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders.
Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2012). Understanding a firm's openness decisions in in- Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525–540.
novation. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 438–445. Kim, N., Kim, D. J., & Lee, S. (2015). Antecedents of open innovation at the project level:
Driessen, P. H., Kok, R. A., & Hillebrand, B. (2013). Mechanisms for stakeholder in- Empirical analysis of Korean firms. R&D Management, 45(5), 411–439.
tegration: Bringing virtual stakeholder dialogue into organizations. Journal of Krippendorff, K. (2006). Semantic turn: New foundations for design. Boca Raton, FL.
Business Research, 66(9), 1465–1472. London: CRC Taylor and Francis.
Ebner, W., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Community engineering for innova- Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting inter-organizational re-
tions: The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for in- search using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.
novations. R&D Management, 39(4), 342–356. Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2009). Different modes of open innovation: A theoretical
Eftekhari, N., & Bogers, M. (2015). Open for entrepreneurship: How open innovation can framework and an empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Management,
foster new venture creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4), 574–584. 13(04), 615–636.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). The interplay between creativity issues
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. and design theories: A new perspective for design management studies? Interplay
Eneberg, M., & Svengren Holm, L. (2015). From goods to service logic: Service business between creativity issues and design theory. Creativity and Innovation Management,
model requirements in industrial design firms. The Design Journal, 18(1), 9–30. 20(4), 217–237.
Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation: Exploring the case of cross-industry Leonard, D., & Rayport, J. F. (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard
innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 256–270. Business Review, 75(6), 102–113.
Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and Lerro, A., Schiuma, G., Elia, G., & Passiante, G. (2016). Dimensions and practices of the
innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. The Journal of Product Innovation collaborative relationships between cultural and creative organisations and business.
Management, 22(3), 238–250. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 15(2–3), 209–229.
Fogelberg, H., & Sanden, B. (2008). Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future
analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization. Technology Analysis directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.
& Strategic Management, 20(1), 65–78. Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open
Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2017). Success factors in university sport partnerships: A case innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies,
study. EuroMed Journal of Business, 12(1), 87–102. 46(8), 1315–1338.
Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å. (2007). Technology-based entrepreneurship and regional de-
Management, 36(3), 223–228. velopment: The case of Sweden. European Business Review, 19(5), 373–386.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and
Management, 40(3), 213–221. translation – A knowledge transfer mode. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3),
Gebauer, J., Füller, J., & Pezzei, R. (2013). The dark and the bright side of co-creation: 118–131.
Triggers of member behavior in online innovation communities. Journal of Business Lombardi, R., Lardo, A., Cuozzo, B., & Trequattrini, R. (2017). Emerging trends in en-
Research, 66(9), 1516-1527. trepreneurial universities within Mediterranean regions: An international compar-
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, ison. EuroMed Journal of Business, 12(2), 130–145.
1(1), 439–477. Maeda, J., & Ito, J. (2015). Q&A. Design Management Review, 26, 10–14.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Mahr, D., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2014). The value of customer co- created knowledge
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 454–462. during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3),
Gilmore, A., & Coviello, N. (1999). Methodologies for research at the marketing/en- 599–615.
trepreneurship interface. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), Makri, M., Lane, P. J., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2006). CEO incentives, innovation, and
41–53. performance in technology-intensive firms: A reconciliation of outcome and beha-
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. vior-based incentive schemes. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1057–1080.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory – Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Markovic, S., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2018). How does breadth of external stakeholder co-
Sociology Press. creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for knowledge sharing and product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88,
qualitative research. New York: Aldine. 173–186.
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Yannopoulos, P. (2014). Customer and supplier involvement in
N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing design: The moderating role of incremental and radical innovation capability. Journal
Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24. of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 313–328.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate re- Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for Services. Farnham: Gower Publishing.
sponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327. Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Ardito, L. & Savino, T. (2018), “Maturity of knowledge inputs and
Grimaldi, M., Quinto, I., & Rippa, P. (2013). Enabling open innovation in small and innovation value: The moderating effect of firm age and size” Journal of Business
medium enterprises: A dynamic capabilities approach. Knowledge and Process Research, 2018. 86: p. 190–201.
Management, 20(4), 199–210. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data:
Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Leading with vision: The design of new ventures. Design Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 20–30.
Management Review, 16(1), 33–39. Moon, H., Mariadoss, B. J., & Johnson, J. L. (2017). Collaboration with higher education
Hashai, N. (2018). Focusing the high-technology firm: How outsourcing affects techno- institutions for successful firm innovation. Journal of Business Research.. https://doi.
logical knowledge exploration. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1736–1765. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.033.
Hirsch, E. (2012). The paradox of design entrepreneurship: Are you a risk voyeur? Design Moultrie, J. (2015). Understanding and classifying the role of design demonstrators in
Management Review, 23(3), 86–87. scientific exploration. Technovation, 43, 1–16.
Holden, N. J., & von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O. (2004). Why cross-cultural knowledge transfer Natalicchio, A., Ardito, L., Savino, T., & Albino, V. (2017). Managing knowledge assets for
is a form of translation in more ways than you think. Knowledge and Process open innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management,
Management, 11(2), 127–136. 21(6), 1362–1383.
Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: The adaptive nature Ndou, V., Vecchio, P. D., & Schina, L. (2011). Open innovation networks: The role of
of cross-boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491. innovative marketplaces for small and medium enterprises' value creation.
Huizingh, E. K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 8(03), 437–453.
Technovation, 31(1), 2–9. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Hult, T. M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder marketing: A Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation
definition and conceptual framework. AMS Review, 1(1), 44–65. in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business
Iglesias, O., Ind, N., & Alfaro, M. (2013). The organic view of the brand: A brand value co- Research, 69(10), 4033–4041.
creation model. Journal of Brand Management, 20(8), 670–688. Reich, Y., Konda, S. L., Monarch, I. A., Levy, S. N., & Subrahmanian, E. (1996). Varieties
Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Markovic, S. (2017). The co-creation continuum: From tactical and issues of participation and design. Design Studies, 17(2), 165–180.
market research tool to strategic collaborative innovation method. Journal of Brand Rust, C. (2004). Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues,
Management, 24(4), 310–321. 20(4), 76–85.
Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Schultz, M. (2013). Building brands together: Emergence and Rust, C. (2007). Unstated contributions: How artistic inquiry can inform interdisciplinary
outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26. research. International Journal of Design, 1(3), 69–76.

10
G. Secundo, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Salter, A., Ter Wal, A. L. J., Criscuolo, P., & Alexy, O. (2015). Open for ideation: Giustina Secundo is Senior Researcher in Management Engineering at University of
Individual-level openness and idea generation in R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Salento (Italy). Her research is characterized by a cross-disciplinary focus, with a major
Management, 32(4), 488–504. interest towards Knowledge assets management, Innovation Management and Knowledge
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 825. intensive entrepreneurship. She has been scientific responsible of several education and
Seaton, R. A. F. (2002). Knowledge transfer. Strategic tools to support adaptive, integrated research projects held in partnership with leading academic and industrial partners. Her
water resource management under changing conditions at catchment scale - a co-evolu- research activities have been documented in about 120 international papers. Her research
tionary approach. Bedford: The AQUADAPT project. appeared in Technovation, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Journal of
Secundo, G., Del, V., Schiuma, P., & G. and Passiante, G. (2017). Activating en- Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management Research & Practices, Measuring Business
trepreneurial learning processes for transforming university students' idea into en- Excellence and Journal of Knowledge Management. She's lecturer of Project management
trepreneurial practices. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Salento since 2001. She is a member of
23(3), 465–485. the Project Management Institute. Across 2014 and 2015 she has been visiting researcher
Shams, S. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial challenges in the 21st century: Creating stakeholder value at the Innovation Insights Hub, University of the Arts London (UK). She can be contacted
co-creation. Springer. at: giusy.secundo@unisalento.it.
Shams, S. R., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial co-creation: A research vision to
be materialised. Management Decision, 54(6), 1250–1268. Pasquale Del Vecchio PhD, is a Researcher and Lecturer at the Department of
Simeone, L. (2016). Design Moves: Translational Processes and Academic Engineering for Innovation of the University of Salento, Italy. In 2007 he was a visiting
Entrepreneurship in Design Labs (PhD thesis). Retrieved from Malmö University: PhD student in the Center for Business Intelligence at MIT's Sloan School of Management
https://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/21426. where he had the opportunity to consolidate the methodological framework of his thesis
Simeone, L., Secundo, G., & Schiuma, G. (2017a). Fostering academic entrepreneurship titled “CRM 2.0 and Reputational Dynamics in the Blogosphere. Lessons learnt from a
through design-as-translation to align stakeholders' needs: The MIT SENSEable City Software Firm Case Study”. His research field concerns the issues of user-driven in-
Lab case Technovation. Volumes, 64–65, 58–67. novation and open innovation with a specific focus on the phenomenon of virtual com-
Simeone, L., Secundo, G. and Schiuma, G. (2017b)“Knowledge translation mechanisms in munities of customers. Currently, he is involved in a project related to the development of
open innovation: The role of design in R&D projects”, Journal of Knowledge a smart tourism destination as well as in development of innovative approaches at the
Management, 21 (6), 1406-1429. creation of technology driven entrepreneurship. These research activities have been
Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge international handbook of partici- documented in approximately 40 publications spanning international journals, con-
patory design. New York: Routledge. ference proceedings and book chapters. He can be contacted at: pasquale.delvecchio@
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Vol. 15. Newbury Park, unisalento.it
CA: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Luca Simeone's trajectory crosses design management, interaction design, and design
Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. anthropology. He has conducted research and teaching activities in leading international
Tomes, A., Oates, C., & Armstrong, P. (1998). Talking design: Negotiating the verbal–- centers (Harvard, MIT and Polytechnic University of Milan), (co)authoring and (co)
visual translation. Design Studies, 19, 127–142. editing some 70 publications. His latest book (Visualizing the Data City, Springer, 2014)
van de Vrande, V., & de Man, A. P. (2011). A response to “Is open innovation a field of explores the potential of data visualizations for more inclusive urban design, planning,
study or a communication barrier to theory development?”. Technovation, 31(4), management processes. He is the founder and managing partner of Vianet, an interaction
185–186. design agency focused on delivering advanced technology and design solutions based on
Viglia, G., Pera, R., & Bigné, E. (2017). The determinants of stakeholder engagement in ethnographic research methods. Vianet has worked on more than 500 high-impact and
digital platforms. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. award-winning projects, from interactive museums to experimental publishing platforms.
2017.12.029. Luca also works as a consultant for public and private organizations (the European
von Hippel, E. (2010). Open user innovation. Handbook of the economics of innovation, 1, Commission and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) in order to help
411–427. define strategies, policies, and funding schemes to support strategic design approaches
Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external targeted to innovation. Across 2014 and 2015 he is visiting researcher for the Innovation
knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Insights Hub, University of the Arts London. He can be contacted at: me@luca.simeo-
Transfer, 42(2), 374–388. ne.name.
Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2014). The ‘leadership–stakeholder involvement
capacity’ nexus in stakeholder management. Journal of Business Research, 67(7),
Giovanni Schiuma is Professor of Innovation Management at University of Basilicata and
1342–1352.
past director of the Innovation Insights Hub at University of the Arts London. He has held
Walton, T. (2004). Design as economic strategy. Design Management Review, 15(4), 6–9.
visiting teaching and research appointments at Cranfield School of Management,
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of
Graduate School of Management St. Petersburg University, Cambridge Service Alliance -
research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4),
IfM University of Cambridge, University of Kozminski, University of Bradford, Tampere
814–831.
University of Technology. Giovanni has authored or co-authored more than 180 pub-
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The
lications on a range of research topics particularly embracing Strategic Knowledge Asset
next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811.
and Intellectual Capital Management, Strategic Performance Measurement and
Westlund, H., Andersson, M., & Karlsson, C. (2014). Creativity as an integral element of
Management, Innovation Systems, and Organizational Development. He serves as Chief-
social capital and its role for economic performance. Handbook of research on en-
Editor of the journal “Knowledge Management Research and Practice” and as Co-Editor in
trepreneurship and creativity, 60.
Chief of the international journal “Measuring Business Excellence” and he has acted as
Wetter-Edman, K. (2014). Design for service: A framework for articulating designers' con-
guest Editor of a number of international journals. Giovanni chairs the International
tribution as interpreter of users' experience. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Forum on Knowledge Assets Dynamics. He can be contacted at: giovanni.schiuma@
unibas.it

11